brickboy

Nacro, I've got the figs for the GT PD130 vs the 1.8T GTI and there's very little in it:

0-50: 5.9 (PD) / 6.2 (1.8T)
0-60: 7.8 / 7.9
0-80: 13.6 / 13.5

Factory figures for the VAG diesels are VERY conservative for some reason, I've got a library of tests from various mags, on various VAG diesels and they all beat the factory quoted figures by large margins -- over a second in some cases.

Doesn't apply to all diesels, it just shows that unlike the BMWs the VAG group cars are much closer when comparing petrol v diesel.

[Edited by brickboy - 8/5/2003 5:34:09 PM]

NACRO

"Also, I can't think of anyone who has a diesel as their flagship engine."

I think the Toerag V10 diesel is the current range topper for VW .

they are promoting that as heavily as the W12

Looks like a good but very heavy powerplant.


[Edited by NACRO - 8/5/2003 8:54:36 PM]

mik

CLICKY LINK

The First car Harry Metcalfe of Evo mag ever awarded "5 stars" to, but what does he know?

You're choosing to ignore the "real world driving" in-gear timings which I understand to be empirically derived. I know which are more relevant for me - obviously you like to stop before every assault on the throttle?


[Edited by mik - 8/6/2003 8:00:00 AM]

AJbaseBloke

40k sterling

I'll keep my dirty, comfortable B4 thanks... it may only get 21mpg in town, and 28 to 32 on the open road, but to make up the difference in cost alone w/fuel savings slone would not be possible.

But I do look forward to 100hp/ltr diesels as Ricardo is now developing...if they can get them to stop spewing PM10 (or whatever that horrible cancer causing agent is) I may look at one...

[Edited by AJbaseBloke - 8/6/2003 8:52:59 AM]

ChrisB

I was flicking through a copy of Whatcar earlier this afternoon. They had the Cooper Works S reviewed. 200bhp and circa 175lb/ft is pretty good for a hot hatch right?

They had 50 to 70 (can't remember what gear) being 5.6 seconds.

Ibiza TDi Sport is 4.7 seconds in 3rd and 5.3 seconds in 4th. Gee, that sucks for real world yadda yadda yadda

[Edited by ChrisB - 8/6/2003 3:45:44 PM]

tiggers

I have noticed a growing trend towards performance diesels in the last few years and now even EVO magazine regularly feature diesels in their articles.

I have driven a few of these vehicles and they're not that bad, but to me they are no subsitution for a similarly powered petrol fuelled vehicle.

To me and this is based purely on a UK (for that is where I live) point of view they don't make sense for the following reasons:

Noisier than a petrol (even the quiet ones are noiseier than their petrol counterparts)
Diesel is the same price or more expensive than petrol
They need servicing more often
They redline much lower
They are not that much better in terms of mpg (as to get the performance they have sacrifiec economy)
Any noise they do make is no match for a nice petrol engine 'noise'
You have to queue with trucks and a range of agricultural machinery (Discovery's and the like) to get your fuel and when you do it stinks and is gnerally all over the pump and floor near the pump.

Basically I just don't get it!

So what is the attraction?

Regards,

tiggers.

ChrisB

1) Noise - Ford, VAG PD, BMW etc derv engines continue to improve. As the boffins come up with new ideas, I'd expect them to close the gap even more.

2) In the UK it is. Does continental Europe differ? I can't remember

3) Not true. My Ibiza TDi Sport is having it's 10k first service today. I believe that's the same as MY03 Scooby and bets the 7.5k service of my old Scooby.

4) Efficiency reasons no? Mik?

5) I did Canterbury and back at the weekend. Nearly 500 miles of motorway (inc. traffic jams , fast A roads and town driving) I averaged around 52mpg. I wasn't hanging around and keeping to sensible speeds.

6) Agreed but see 1).

7) I've not really had a sticky pump yet (oo-er misses!)

Attraction is 375 miles for £25 of diesel, 50% lower insurance, as quick as my old 206GTI (same torque as a standard Scooby) to name but a few things...

Just IMHO.

Chris.

mik

Why not?

Since they don't have a throttle they're more economical at any part-throttle opening than a conventional petrol car. You don't get to apply full throttle that much on today's roads.

They're a doddle to tune, cheaper to tax and often to insure.

They don't sound great (actually 330D sounds nice & gruff and bass-y), or have great throttle response. Most modern petrol engines sound pretty p1sh though, and have similarly soft throttle response.

And many enthusiasts still snear.....which adds to the appeal

stevenuk300

TORQUE.
The torque figure on the 330D BMW is higher than the M3. Instant power at lower revs.
I've always hated diesels, and at 25 feel to young to own a diesel, but they are improving all the time.

NACRO

The best things about modern diesels are the touring range they offer on a single tank of petrol.

In the UK the advantages are less than in Europe, the market that has driven the revolution in diesel technology. Diesel is dirt cheap over here- in France it is 20% less expensive than SUL, the difference is even greater in Spain where it costs about 70 euro cents per litre (about 50p depending on exchange rates).

Other plus points include a beneficial tax regime for UK company car drivers choosing diesel and higher second hand values.

Personally I wouldn't have a diesel as they always underperform in comparison to similar petrol alternatives. Also they sound cheap and tacky like a taxi or delivery vehicle. I guess if superficial running costs are important to you as a private motorist then you choose a diesel (purchase cost is usually more than the equivalent petrol). The rest of us will stick to petrol for the time being.

Mungo

Fuel economy - I get 450 miles from 50 litres of diesel (Gold TDi) whereas I used to only get 350 from my 1.8 Focus. And the Golf is 130hp whereas the Focus was only 115.

NACRO

Mungo just out of interest what is the price difference between the 2 fuels used in your cars?

I've found when you work out the difference in price to purchase the vehicle initially and then the extra cost of diesel fuel running a diesel car can actually work out more expensive than a similar petrol vehicle.

This all changes with company cars of course......it's not that diesels are bad I just can't understand the obsession with them in the UK, a country which rips off diesel fuel users.

brickboy

All depends what you want from your car. If high rpm, tuneful exhaust etc etc are essential to you, then you won't like them.

However they're just as fast in ordinary A-road / B-road / motorway driving as a comparable petrol car.

Of course a Scoob / Evo will lose them when on full boost and in the twisties etc but that's not comparing like with like. As an alternative to a comparable petrol model (e.g. BMW 320d vs. 320i, 330d vs. 330i etc etc) they make very good sense.

If you drive a Golf GTI 150 petrol and diesel back to back, you'll get the idea. The diesel is simply better on the road. Much more grunt, accessible when you need it -- you're not rowing the car along on the gear lever.

Edited to add: my company Passat PD 130 saves me £800 per year on tax and fuel compared with my old company wheels.


[Edited by brickboy - 04/08/2003 14:11:17]

Tiggs

admit i have no idea what people are on about when they say things like "improving all the time" "nearly as good as petrol" ???? its like 4X4's that get call "almost car like" just buy a bloody car!

dharbige

Our 320d touring is *very* nice to drive. It handles well, so I have fun chucking it round roundabouts. It's got tonnes of torque, so it pulls away quickly when I come off the roundabouts.

And I live in Milton Keynes, so there are lots of roundabouts!

It *IS* more noisy than a petrol engine, but only from the outside. The sound proofing is so good that you can't tell it's a diesel when your driving it.

Fuel economy is amazing - 40mpg it probably the norm - and that's while chucking it around roundabouts and accelerating up to...errr..70 between them.
Its first service (an oil change) is at 12,500 miles

It uses about half as much fuel as the Scoob did. No kidding. A tank of fuel in the scoob lasted just under 1 week of normal commuting for my wife. A tank of fuel on the BMW would last just over 2 weeks doing the same commute. The fills would cost about the same, as we filled the Scoob with Optimax, and the BMW has a larger tank.

And in a couple of years time when I come to sell, I'll be surprised if it's depreciated more than 20%.

(But I'd still rather have the scoob back!)

cletterridge

Because you can refuel them at Asda!


(For 39p a litre from the vegetable oil aisle!)

LEE P

well at 550 miles a tank and averaging 45/50 mpg running 185 bhp 285ftlb of torque it makes me smile everytime i suprise a supposedly quick petrol

audi avs service is around 18k to 30k miles depending on conditions and driving styles....half price insurance compared to scoob and ive only replaced rear tyres at 38k! on second set of fronts.
even still at 40k id of been through 4 sets on my scoob.

i calculated over a 3 year period id be 9k better off than running the scoob and thats not including the depreciation!

so with my savings i have my track car and extra hols.!!!

Lee

NACRO

So it seems diesels are for penny pinchers? (and people who don't like to change gear)

I'm afraid the fact is they are pretty slow compared to performance cars like an Impreza for example, but hey, if you like to save cash then that's the way to go.

I'll be sticking to 20mpg and real performance.

mik

Penny Pincher.

Real performance cars get less than 20mpg.

NACRO

lol 20 mpg is on a run- it drops down into single figures when I boot it.

mik

And if you go on a Honda VTEC BBS I'm sure Scoobies are for people who don't like to change gear

NACRO

? Gear changes in my Impreza are almost as frequent as when I've driven my friends Accord type R. Anyone who doesn't change gear often in an Impreza is not driving it properly. It's all out of power at 6K revs, unlike a VTEC. In fact if anything you hold gears longer in the Honda- I love them, a high revving PETROL engine in a performance car. It will be some time before we see a Honda Type R burning the dirty stuff.

Get back on topic and explain why anyone would want to save money on a performance car. We aren't discussing the merits of diesels as frugal transport, just the oxymoron that is "performance diesel".

ChrisB

Why can't you have a performance diesel car?

Take two 180bhp cars. One is a diesel, one is a petrol. 180BHP is pretty much where the hot hatch market is at the moment and a 180bhp FWD drive (Clio Cup etc) can give a 220bhp Scooby a hard time.

If the diesel car can stay welded to the back of the petrol car, why shouldn't it be called a performance car?

NACRO

Quote: "Take two 180bhp cars. One is a diesel, one is a petrol. 180BHP is pretty much where the hot hatch market is at the moment and a 180bhp FWD drive (Clio Cup etc) can give a 220bhp Scooby a hard time."



There is some twisted logic there! I can't think of any 180BHP diesels in the Clio class of vehicle. I agree that a 180bhp Clio (petrol car) would give a Subaru a hard time. I also agree that a Clio 172/Cup is a good performance car. I wouldn't agree that a VAGPD150 powered motor is a performance car, even when chipped. Look at the 0-100 times of diesels for an idea of how far back they would be from rest compared to an Impreza or Clio Cup. Nice cars for the motorway cruise but a performance vehicle- NO.

As has been said here before "it's not how fast you go, it's how you go fast" and low revving diesels just don't qualify IMHO.

ChrisB

Did I mention a VAG PD powerplant in the diesel? Erm, no

I'm simply saying if a diesel car can keep up with a petrol car of similar power outputs (ie hot hatch category), then why shouldn't the diesel be classed as a performance car?

NACRO

No you didn't, you mentioned some mythical 180BHP diesel unit in a hot hatch, as I'm not aware that one exists I thought I'd come up with the most powerful real world example of a small(ish) diesel engined car I could think of. So far all you've said is that a Clio (petrol car) can give an Impreza a hard time- that I agree with.


If you look at the times 0-100 you'll see that almost all diesel engined cars are very slow compared to real performance cars, excpet perhaps a V10 engined Phaeton or similar.

ChrisB

We've been here before haven't we?

0-100 has no bearing on a cars ability to get from point A to point B down an A or B road.

NACRO

quote: "0-100 has no bearing on a cars ability to get from point A to point B down an A or B road."

I'll disagree with you there- depends on the road really. I can think of many A roads which involve standing starts from traffic lights but anyway................

I remember a top gear test where they pitted a 330D against a 330 (or maybe even a 328 in those day)and the diesel was significantly slower.

I notice you've not told me what this 180BHP diesel engined supermini is yet either- or does it exist solely in your imagination?

I think the facts speak for themselves- diesels are slower than the equivalent petrol car.

If you like in gear performance and low revs combined with a heavy front end then buy a diesel. Those qualities aren't in my mind compatible with the concept of a performance car.

The new M3 diesel??? Never.

MattOz

Here we go again. Performace diesels are here to stay and I'd certainly take one over an equivalent petrol.

I'm about to take delivery of my 3rd 330d. I changed my STI5 Type R V-Ltd for my first 330d. I changed my GTR33-VSpec for my second 330d and I've now sold my E39 M5 in order to make way for my 3rd 330d. There's definitely a pattern forming here!

The reason for yet another 330d is simple. I love using my cars and they take me everywhere and I do about 25k miles a year. I commute, take customers out and enjoy trips to the Ring. The STI was blindingly quick, the Skyline sounded fantastic and the M5 was just the best bits of the Scoob and Nissan rolled into one sublimely built package.

However, none of the petrol cars above gave me the satisfaction of the 330d. None of them returned enough smiles for the amount of money I was putting in the tank. I love the fact that the 330d will easily average 37 mpg regardless. If any of the others did that I'd have no need to have a diesel. The cost-performance benefit to me of the 330d is huge. I'm not paying through the nose to get the performance that makes me chuckle.

My new 330d has 204bhp and 320ft/lbs of torque as standard. Tuned up, these figures rise to 240 bhp and 410 ft/lbs. And it'll still do 37mpg as an average.

If anyone is attending the Ring trip in September and I can make it, please ask for a passenger lap. I have taken performance diesel doubters out in my old 330d and they have been converted. Scoobies are easy meat round there for a well driven 330d, as are 911's and M cars.

Performance diesels are here to stay. I'll be at the pumps half as often as a Scooby driver and enjoy 25k service intervals along with great residual value. I'm just happy that I've not got my head shoved up my **** and can see a driving life outside of Jap turbo cars. Shame more people don't have a balanced view.

Matt

brickboy

The diesel vs. petrol debate is exactly the same as the manual vs. automatic gearbox debate .... each side has its devotees who swear the others are missing the point.

Modern diesels can be fun to drive. It's a different kind of fun to driving a Scoob / CTR / 172. But it's still fun. End of story.